POFO Anything Goes Thread. ((Warning do not enter if you can't handle fire))

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The tangible reality of being able to afford braces is always going to take precedent over an abstract concept like civil liberties, which is an issue that's really only important to college students and libertarian/survivalist types from the Midwest and West.

News to me.

Originally Posted by TheWalrus

Secondly, as I said, the profiling of criminal behavior is a long established practice. I don't think you're objecting to that, more that the result of profiling in lieu of hard evidence can be used to justify indefinite detention where before it might have only lead to questioning, surveillance or a search warrant.

Yes, absolutely. I also do have a problem with some of the criteria itself; seven day’s food? Several guns? C’mon feds.

Originally Posted by TheWalrus

I wouldn't call it faith. It just my read on the law. I'm far from an expert but I do a bit of reading on the subject.

I’m far from an expert on Football but I still take it on faith that Texans are going to beat the Jaguars next week. Nevermind that though, it’s semantics anyway. Fienstein proposed 2 amendments to the bill that would expressly prohibit such behavior, both were easily voted down. I see no reason why such measures would happen in the future. We'll have to see.

Originally Posted by TheWalrus

Well, allow me to play devil's advocate. Why do you have an expectation of privacy about information you put out on the internet? Forget how silly it is to expect message board posts or facebook to be private, but why do you think the "privacy agreement" you clicked "yes" on with your email provider is legally binding? They're hosting your emails ontheir servers, after all. And everyone knows that. And they're not lawyers or doctors or psychiatrists. You have no explicit, legally protected relationship with them, anymore than you do with a friend you swear to secrecy about something.

You're not required to have a digital presence. No one makes you use a cell phone or write emails or use Google specifically or the internet generally. If you're going to venture out into a largely unregulated area, which the internet is, and put information out there of your own free will, why assume the government won't be listening when no law exists to stop them and the fourth amendment only covers your person, house, papersand effects?

There’s a reason why the NSA is claiming their not monitoring the information they’re obtaining.

--

Cedar you Californians are slacking on those legalization amendments. & Great pics as well, is that a Sonoma beach?

No kidding. Turns out life is enough of a struggle for a lot of people their focus can never get beyond immediate concerns.

Yes, absolutely. I also do have a problem with some of the criteria itself; seven day’s food? Several guns? C’mon feds.

An uncle of mine is a retired FBI agent. He and I aren't close and haven't talked in detail about it, but simply having seven days food or a couple of guns is not alone considered suspicious behavior. Among other things, there just isn't the manpower to investigate everyone who satisfies individual aspects of that criteria. But once you start ticking off enough boxes, then law enforcement starts to get suspicious. A guy missing fingers, with hand drawn maps of public buildings, who sports tattoos indicating membership in separatist groups?

Sounds reasonable to investigate such a person further, don't you think? Like I said, I don't think "battlefield" rules should apply to US soil, but I'm not going to sit here and say that all lawful behavior is equally benign.

There’s a reason why the NSA is claiming their not monitoring the information they’re obtaining.

The NSA doesn't disclose anything it doesn't have to. That's not proof of anything. The point is the legality of what they're doing. Which isn't in itself a guarantee they won't do it anyway, but at least the law should be clear and until the court rules on these things it won't be.

I notice you didn't answer why you think you should have an expectation of privacy on the internet.

No kidding. Turns out life is enough of a struggle for a lot of people their focus can never get beyond immediate concerns.

I hear ya

Originally Posted by TheWalrus

An uncle of mine is a retired FBI agent. He and I aren't close and haven't talked in detail about it, but simply having seven days food or a couple of guns is not alone considered suspicious behavior. Among other things, there just isn't the manpower to investigate everyone who satisfies individual aspects of that criteria. But once you start ticking off enough boxes, then law enforcement starts to get suspicious. A guy missing fingers, with hand drawn maps of public buildings, who sports tattoos indicating membership in separatist groups?

Sounds reasonable to investigate such a person further, don't you think? Like I said, I don't think "battlefield" rules should apply to US soil, but I'm not going to sit here and say that all lawful behavior is equally benign.

That’s a really specific fictional scenario. In that case, sure, get a search warrant for that guy; don’t detain him indefinitely though. 7 day’s food, & owning several guns is fairly common.

Like you mentioned, it's the combination of detaining citizens with said low criteria. As Rand Paul hinted at, if they view you as an activist/general trouble-maker, they could easily justify 'suspecting' almost anyone as a terrorist. Due-process should be afforded to these people; I don't think you can always trust the fed's judgement on the matter.

Originally Posted by TheWalrus

The NSA doesn't disclose anything it doesn't have to. That's not proof of anything. The point is the legality of what they're doing. Which isn't in itself a guarantee they won't do it anyway, but at least the law should be clear and until the court rules on these things it won't be.

I notice you didn't answer why you think you should have an expectation of privacy on the internet.

Congress apparently thinks they’re doing something illegal.

Last month, a letter to Congress noted that “on at least one occasion” a secretive US court ruled that National Security Agency surveillance carried out under a 2008 act of Congress violated the Fourth Amendment’s restriction against unreasonable searches and seizures. But the actual ruling remains secret. Decisions handed down by the US’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) are classified “because of the sensitive intelligence matters they concern,” the letter from the Office of the National Intelligence Director to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) states.

Details on a government ruling that the NSA violated the Constitution could help the EFF in its broader fight against warrantless wiretapping authority granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008. While the FISA amendments in 2008 were designed to aid anti-terrorist operations, the EFF says it "gave the NSA expansive power to spy on Americans' international e-mail and telephone calls." The EFF lawsuit filed today says the FISC ruling or rulings should be made public because it concerns “possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence.” The lawsuit asks for a decision ordering the DOJ to make the records available immediately.

Mild break in the action here, but what do y'all think of these recent pics I took on the coast?

You know what I think about these? See that big roundish rock in the middle of picture one? Take that ****er up to the top of the cliff that is in the last picture near those trees, hang on to that big round rock and jump the **** off the cliff.

The phrase petrodollar warfare refers to a hypothesis that one of the driving forces of United States foreign policy over recent decades[when?] has been the status of the United States dollar as the world's dominant reserve currency and as the currency in which oil is priced. The term was coined by William R. Clark, who has written a book with the same title. The phrase oil currency wars is sometimes used with the same meaning.

Most oil sales throughout the world are denominated in United States dollars (USD).[1] According to proponents of the petrodollar warfare hypothesis, because most countries rely on oil imports, they are forced to maintain large stockpiles of dollars in order to continue imports. This creates a consistent demand for USDs and upwards pressure on the USD's value, regardless of economic conditions in the United States. This in turn allegedly allows the US government to gain revenues through seignorage and by issuing bonds at lower interest rates than they otherwise would be able to. As a result the U.S. government can run higher budget deficits at a more sustainable level than can most other countries. A stronger USD also means that goods imported into the United States are relatively cheap.

Another component of the hypothesis is that the price of oil is more stable in the U.S. than anywhere else, since importers do not need to worry about exchange rate fluctuations. Since the U.S. imports a great deal of oil, its markets are heavily reliant on oil and its derivative products (jet fuel, diesel fuel, gasoline, etc.) for their energy needs. The price of oil can be an important political factor; U.S. administrations are quite sensitive to the price of oil.

Political enemies of the United States therefore have some interest in seeing oil denominated in euros or other currencies. The EU could also theoretically accrue the same benefits if the euro replaced the dollar. However, the European economy could also be seriously damaged if the euro were to appreciate significantly against the dollar or other world currencies, particularly its exports which would become relatively more expensive for the rest of the world. The same dynamic can apply to the dollar and the U.S. economy, as well.

In 2000, Iraq converted all its oil transactions under the Oil for Food program to euros.[2] When U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it returned oil sales from the euro to the USD.[3]

The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran takes this theory as fact. As retaliation to this policy seen as neoimperialism, Iran has made an effort to create its own Iranian Oil Bourse which has sold oil in Gold, Euros, Dollars, and Japanese Yen since its opening. The theory is supported historically by Iranian intellectuals as a move made by the American elites after World War II with the Bretton Woods Act, taking away Gold backing from the Pound Sterling and discreetly starting the eventual pegging of Gulf Arab Oil producers' currencies after Britain gave them independence in 1961 and 1971. These countries were further secured militarily after the Gulf War in 1990. This pegging of the currencies along with the exchanges being exclusively in USD in only two places, the IPE in London and NYMEX in New York City, has given the United States a near monopoly, with growing economies such as India and China waiting in line for orders. Critics say this revolutionary move by Iran in creating a rival market may also be one of the reasons for the ongoing energy-related US competition with Iran.

In mid-2006 Venezuela indicated support of Iran's decision to offer global oil trade in the euro currency.[4]
A controversial change like that in Iran would have limited ability to influence the denomination of sales one way or the other. A large number of traders would have to agree to a change in denomination before a significant change would occur.